Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) have become powerful tools for complex problem solving, but their structured reasoning pathways can lead to unsafe outputs when exposed to harmful prompts. Existing safety alignment methods reduce harmful outputs but can degrade reasoning depth, leading to significant trade-offs in complex, multi-step tasks, and remain vulnerable to sophisticated jailbreak attacks. To address this, we introduce SAFEPATH, a lightweight alignment method that fine-tunes LRMs to emit a short, 8-token Safety Primer at the start of their reasoning, in response to harmful prompts, while leaving the rest of the reasoning process unsupervised. Empirical results across multiple benchmarks indicate that SAFEPATH effectively reduces harmful outputs while maintaining reasoning performance. Specifically, SAFEPATH reduces harmful responses by up to 90.0% and blocks 83.3% of jailbreak attempts in the DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Llama-8B model, while requiring 295.9x less compute than Direct Refusal and 314.1x less than SafeChain. We further introduce a zero-shot variant that requires no fine-tuning. In addition, we provide a comprehensive analysis of how existing methods in LLMs generalize, or fail, when applied to reasoning-centric models, revealing critical gaps and new directions for safer AI.

Large language models (LLMs) have shown great potential in flagging harmful content in online communities. Yet, existing approaches for moderation require a separate model for every community and are opaque in their decision-making, limiting real-world adoption. We introduce Mixture of Moderation Experts (MoMoE), a modular, cross-community framework that adds post-hoc explanations to scalable content moderation. MoMoE orchestrates four operators -- Allocate, Predict, Aggregate, Explain -- and is instantiated as seven community-specialized experts (MoMoE-Community) and five norm-violation experts (MoMoE-NormVio). On 30 unseen subreddits, the best variants obtain Micro-F1 scores of 0.72 and 0.67, respectively, matching or surpassing strong fine-tuned baselines while consistently producing concise and reliable explanations. Although community-specialized experts deliver the highest peak accuracy, norm-violation experts provide steadier performance across domains. These findings show that MoMoE yields scalable, transparent moderation without needing per-community fine-tuning. More broadly, they suggest that lightweight, explainable expert ensembles can guide future NLP and HCI research on trustworthy human-AI governance of online communities.

Large Language Models are increasingly adopted as critical tools for accelerating innovation. This paper identifies and formalizes a systemic risk inherent in this paradigm: \textbf{Black Box Absorption}. We define this as the process by which the opaque internal architectures of LLM platforms, often operated by large-scale service providers, can internalize, generalize, and repurpose novel concepts contributed by users during interaction. This mechanism threatens to undermine the foundational principles of innovation economics by creating severe informational and structural asymmetries between individual creators and platform operators, thereby jeopardizing the long-term sustainability of the innovation ecosystem. To analyze this challenge, we introduce two core concepts: the idea unit, representing the transportable functional logic of an innovation, and idea safety, a multidimensional standard for its protection. This paper analyzes the mechanisms of absorption and proposes a concrete governance and engineering agenda to mitigate these risks, ensuring that creator contributions remain traceable, controllable, and equitable.

Meritocratic systems, from admissions to hiring, aim to impartially reward skill and effort. Yet persistent disparities across race, gender, and class challenge this ideal. Some attribute these gaps to structural inequality; others to individual choice. We develop a game-theoretic model in which candidates from different socioeconomic groups differ in their perceived post-selection value--shaped by social context and, increasingly, by AI-powered tools offering personalized career or salary guidance. Each candidate strategically chooses effort, balancing its cost against expected reward; effort translates into observable merit, and selection is based solely on merit. We characterize the unique Nash equilibrium in the large-agent limit and derive explicit formulas showing how valuation disparities and institutional selectivity jointly determine effort, representation, social welfare, and utility. We further propose a cost-sensitive optimization framework that quantifies how modifying selectivity or perceived value can reduce disparities without compromising institutional goals. Our analysis reveals a perception-driven bias: when perceptions of post-selection value differ across groups, these differences translate into rational differences in effort, propagating disparities backward through otherwise "fair" selection processes. While the model is static, it captures one stage of a broader feedback cycle linking perceptions, incentives, and outcome--bridging rational-choice and structural explanations of inequality by showing how techno-social environments shape individual incentives in meritocratic systems.

The worlds people have strong opinions about artificial intelligence (AI), and they want policymakers to listen. Governments are inviting public comment on AI, but as they translate input into policy, much of what citizens say is lost. Policymakers are missing a critical opportunity to build trust in AI and its governance. This paper compares three countries, Australia, Colombia, and the United States, that invited citizens to comment on AI risks and policies. Using a landscape analysis, the authors examined how each government solicited feedback and whether that input shaped governance. Yet in none of the three cases did citizens and policymakers establish a meaningful dialogue. Governments did little to attract diverse voices or publicize calls for comment, leaving most citizens unaware or unprepared to respond. In each nation, fewer than one percent of the population participated. Moreover, officials showed limited responsiveness to the feedback they received, failing to create an effective feedback loop. The study finds a persistent gap between the promise and practice of participatory AI governance. The authors conclude that current approaches are unlikely to build trust or legitimacy in AI because policymakers are not adequately listening or responding to public concerns. They offer eight recommendations: promote AI literacy; monitor public feedback; broaden outreach; hold regular online forums; use innovative engagement methods; include underrepresented groups; respond publicly to input; and make participation easier.

This paper presents the VLSP 2025 MLQA-TSR - the multimodal legal question answering on traffic sign regulation shared task at VLSP 2025. VLSP 2025 MLQA-TSR comprises two subtasks: multimodal legal retrieval and multimodal question answering. The goal is to advance research on Vietnamese multimodal legal text processing and to provide a benchmark dataset for building and evaluating intelligent systems in multimodal legal domains, with a focus on traffic sign regulation in Vietnam. The best-reported results on VLSP 2025 MLQA-TSR are an F2 score of 64.55% for multimodal legal retrieval and an accuracy of 86.30% for multimodal question answering.

With the growing demand for safeguarding sensitive user information in recommender systems, recommendation attribute unlearning is receiving increasing attention. Existing studies predominantly focus on single-attribute unlearning. However, privacy protection requirements in the real world often involve multiple sensitive attributes and are dynamic. Existing single-attribute unlearning methods cannot meet these real-world requirements due to i) CH1: the inability to handle multiple unlearning requests simultaneously, and ii) CH2: the lack of efficient adaptability to dynamic unlearning needs. To address these challenges, we propose LEGO, a lightweight and efficient multiple-attribute unlearning framework. Specifically, we divide the multiple-attribute unlearning process into two steps: i) Embedding Calibration removes information related to a specific attribute from user embedding, and ii) Flexible Combination combines these embeddings into a single embedding, protecting all sensitive attributes. We frame the unlearning process as a mutual information minimization problem, providing LEGO a theoretical guarantee of simultaneous unlearning, thereby addressing CH1. With the two-step framework, where Embedding Calibration can be performed in parallel and Flexible Combination is flexible and efficient, we address CH2. Extensive experiments on three real-world datasets across three representative recommendation models demonstrate the effectiveness and efficiency of our proposed framework. Our code and appendix are available at https://github.com/anonymifish/lego-rec-multiple-attribute-unlearning.

Robotic arms require precise, task-aware trajectory planning, yet sequence models that ignore motion structure often yield invalid or inefficient executions. We present a Path-based Transformer that encodes robot motion with a 3-grid (where/what/when) representation and constraint-masked decoding, enforcing lattice-adjacent moves and workspace bounds while reasoning over task graphs and action order. Trained on 53,755 trajectories (80% train / 20% validation), the model aligns closely with ground truth -- 89.44% stepwise accuracy, 93.32% precision, 89.44% recall, and 90.40% F1 -- with 99.99% of paths legal by construction. Compiled to motor primitives on an xArm Lite 6 with a depth-camera digital twin, it attains up to 97.5% reach and 92.5% pick success in controlled tests, and 86.7% end-to-end success across 60 language-specified tasks in cluttered scenes, absorbing slips and occlusions via local re-grounding without global re-planning. These results show that path-structured representations enable Transformers to generate accurate, reliable, and interpretable robot trajectories, bridging graph-based planning and sequence-based learning and providing a practical foundation for general-purpose manipulation and sim-to-real transfer.

It is often claimed that machine learning-based generative AI products will drastically streamline and reduce the cost of legal practice. This enthusiasm assumes lawyers can effectively manage AI's risks. Cases in Australia and elsewhere in which lawyers have been reprimanded for submitting inaccurate AI-generated content to courts suggest this paradigm must be revisited. This paper argues that a new paradigm is needed to evaluate AI use in practice, given (a) AI's disconnection from reality and its lack of transparency, and (b) lawyers' paramount duties like honesty, integrity, and not to mislead the court. It presents an alternative model of AI use in practice that more holistically reflects these features (the verification-value paradox). That paradox suggests increases in efficiency from AI use in legal practice will be met by a correspondingly greater imperative to manually verify any outputs of that use, rendering the net value of AI use often negligible to lawyers. The paper then sets out the paradox's implications for legal practice and legal education, including for AI use but also the values that the paradox suggests should undergird legal practice: fidelity to the truth and civic responsibility.

Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) presents transformative opportunities for organizations, yet both midsize organizations and larger enterprises face distinctive adoption challenges. Midsize organizations encounter resource constraints and limited AI expertise, while enterprises struggle with organizational complexity and coordination challenges. Existing technology adoption frameworks, including TAM (Technology Acceptance Model), TOE (Technology Organization Environment), and DOI (Diffusion of Innovations) theory, lack the specificity required for GenAI implementation across these diverse contexts, creating a critical gap in adoption literature. This paper introduces FAIGMOE (Framework for the Adoption and Integration of Generative AI in Midsize Organizations and Enterprises), a conceptual framework addressing the unique needs of both organizational types. FAIGMOE synthesizes technology adoption theory, organizational change management, and innovation diffusion perspectives into four interconnected phases: Strategic Assessment, Planning and Use Case Development, Implementation and Integration, and Operationalization and Optimization. Each phase provides scalable guidance on readiness assessment, strategic alignment, risk governance, technical architecture, and change management adaptable to organizational scale and complexity. The framework incorporates GenAI specific considerations including prompt engineering, model orchestration, and hallucination management that distinguish it from generic technology adoption frameworks. As a perspective contribution, FAIGMOE provides the first comprehensive conceptual framework explicitly addressing GenAI adoption across midsize and enterprise organizations, offering actionable implementation protocols, assessment instruments, and governance templates requiring empirical validation through future research.